Aperture vs Aperture

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by danpass, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. danpass macrumors 68020

    danpass

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #1
    yep, you read it right :D

    Aperture 3 online Apple site: $199

    Aperture 3 thru Mac App store: $79.99


    not sure what the difference is as the Mac App store listed requirements only says " Mac OS X 10.6.6 or later". Nothing about having Aperture already installed.
     
  2. macjonny1 macrumors 6502a

    macjonny1

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #2
    I think Apple is trying to catch those suckers who will buy it with a new system! Sad really that the pricing is different. Imagine getting the one for $199 and finding out you could have had it for cheaper. That kind of game is going to drive traffic over to pirate bay where it's free.
     
  3. Laird Knox macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #3
    Are they really trying to "catch" people or is it that the channels haven't alligned yet?
     
  4. macjonny1 macrumors 6502a

    macjonny1

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #4
    Honestly I don't know if they are trying to "catch" people but they have had plenty of time. I was listening to a podcast (TWIP I think) months ago and they were talking about it then.

    Here's a link from JANUARY talking about what a deal it was! I'd say they have had long enough!

    http://thedigitalstory.com/2011/01/aperture_3_bargain_i.html
     
  5. blevins321 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    #5
    Functionally the programs are the same. Neither require a previous install. The 10.6.6 requirement is only there because you have to have that version to be able to access the app store in the first place. :). Get the download version from the App Store :)
     
  6. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #6
    I don't think they are trying to "catch" anyone. There is a cost involved in maintaining a physical inventory. It's not just the actual cost of the materials in the box, but also the cost of moving it to the shelf, inventorying it, covering the costs of the boxes that mysteriously 'disappear', etc etc.

    Plus, there are people who believe that having a physical disk is worth something more than a downloaded version. So Apple is charging for this perceived value.

    I've never understood why Apple gets slammed for charging for the perceived value that they add to their products. Companies do it all the time. Anything that is "branded" is charging more for it's perceived value than an unbranded item. I'd bet money that I could find half a dozen branded items that could be had for less if they were unbranded in the closet of just about every person who slams Apple for charging too much. 'Course, if you want to take me up on my offer you're going to have to fly me to your location first.... :)
     
  7. macjonny1 macrumors 6502a

    macjonny1

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #7
    To your first paragraph:

    yes there is a cost involved with physical inventory. However, I can tell you that the cost of that isn't $120 extra. That's crazy. If you don't think it's crazy then there's no getting around the Kool Aid you're on. I checked the Adobe store and the price is the same for download and shipping the box. All other examples I've seen are still within the same ballpark of price. This one is more than 2.5x more expensive. Sorry but that's just wrong.

    Your paragraph about perceived value and Apple getting slammed for that has nothing to do with this. Those are instances where people are saying Apple charges too much for hardware for example. This is $120 extra for a box and a disk. Again, it's wrong. Especially without disclosing to people that they could get it cheaper at the time of purchase. As I said before, people are going to be pissed off if they learned they paid $120 extra for a box and a disc.
     
  8. mackmgg macrumors 65816

    mackmgg

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    #8
    Well, I don't like the way Adobe does it either. There is definitely a cost involved with physical inventory, so they should give you a small (even if it's just $20) discount for the digital download version.

    I think the reason Aperture is so much cheaper on the App Store is that Apple wants to promote the App Store. $199 is how much the software has cost for ages, and the same as the Lightroom 3 digital download price. Eventually they'll probably stop providing the box set, but for now they just want to give users an incentive to use the App Store over buying the boxed copy
     
  9. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #9
    What Kool Aid? It's marketing and free-market economics. I forgot another cost... the profit margin that Apple has to allow for the 3rd party stores. Since Apple strictly controls the cost of their goods, a 3rd party store must sell Aperture for the same price as Apple. So, from that $199 Apple deducts the physical costs of the medium, the box, the papers inside. The shipping costs. The tariffs if the box is being shipped cross border. The cost of the money tied up in the purchase of everything mentioned above. I know that they are not "borrowing" the funds, but they are also not earning any investment income from it either... so that "cost" is added to the cost of the physical box. Then there is the cost of replacing faulty disks. Once they have figured out how much an Aperture Box costs they then need to allow (for the 3rd party stores) a profit margin. To my mind this gets us close to the $120. How close, I don't know. But then add in the perceived value of having the box, for some, and you get - $120. People can choose to buy it or not.

    Apple didn't invent this... this is standard business practice.
    Why is it wrong? You have the option of buying or not buying. It is always the responsibility of the consumer to inform themselves. Stores do not, nor are they obliged to, advertize that someone has the same product for less. They don't have to tell you a different store in the chain is selling the product for less, on a "manager's special". The corner store doesn't tell you that the supermarket is selling the same milk for 1/3 the price. Are you unhappy that Apple doesn't try to convince you to buy your new system from the Refurb store? Often you can get the same system for 10% to 20% less there.

    Apple didn't invent the free-market system, but they absolutely understand it, and work it to their advantage. But they are certainly not the worst.

    I have a nephew who loves fancy sunglasses. Just coincidentally I found a pair of generic sunglasses that were identical to his branded ones, for about 1/5th the price. He didn't care. For him the perceived value was the logo. I thought it silly, but I certainly didn't accuse him of drinking Kool Aid.
     
  10. emorydunn macrumors 6502

    emorydunn

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    #10
    A couple people have been correct. The fact that you can get Aperture for $80 is to promote the App Store. It's not about how the physical copy costs more or profit margins or other hidden costs or anything. It's simply a way to get people to buy into their new ecosystem.

    You guys are looking at this the wrong way. The extra $120 is not a "physical copy" tax (when I bought Aperture I had the option of having it shipped or downloaded for the same price). It's a marketing thing, pure and simple.
     
  11. xStep macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Less lost in L.A.
    #11
    They could pull it like they did Final Cut.

    Perhaps the box version is handy for people running OS 10.5 or PPC systems? I don't know what the system requirements are for Aperture.
     

Share This Page